The petitioner must pursue appellate remedies under the CGST Act rather than a writ petition as the order of confiscation had been served properly.

JUDGMENT :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

Petitioner seeks for a direction to quash the detention and confiscation order issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act’). Petitioner also seeks for a direction to release his vehicle apart from a declaration that the detention of the vehicle without proper notice violates the provisions of the Constitution.

2. Petitioner is the owner of a truck bearing registration No.KL-31-J-5759. According to the petitioner, on 23.11.2024, the vehicle transported bilge water from INS Vikramaditya from Cochin Wharf possessing all supporting documents including a delivery note issued by authorised personnel of the Indian Navy. While it was parked, the respondents inspected the vehicle on 24.11.2024 and thereafter moved the vehicle from the petitioner’s parking ground to another parking place on 25.11.2024. Later, on 10.01.2025, petitioner claims to have received a detention order under Section 130 of the CGST Act. According to the petitioner, he has no knowledge or involvement in the alleged tax evasion, and the vehicle was hired only to transport goods, for which no tax is payable and hence the detention is illegal. Exhibit-P2 delivery note issued by the Indian Navy indicates that there is no value for the goods found in the vehicle, and hence, the vehicle ought to be released since it has been remaining idle for more than 50 days as on the date of filing of the writ petition, causing serious loss to him, claims the petitioner.

3. A counter affidavit was filed initially, on behalf of the first respondent stating that petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands after misrepresenting facts. It is averred that the vehicle was intercepted on 24.11.2024, and the petitioner himself was contacted, and the driver’s phone number was obtained. It is further averred that when the driver was contacted, he stated that no documents were entrusted with him before transporting the goods and hence MOV 1 and MOV 2 notices were served by affixing them on the vehicle, and a copy was sent through WhatsApp and the driver was asked to be present on 25.11.2024 with all the required documents. Thereafter, the driver gave a written statement that no documents corresponding to the goods loaded in the tanker lorry were entrusted to him by M/s. Petroliv Petroleums, and he also stated that the tanker contains water mixed with waste oil. It is also stated that an order of confiscation dated 21.12.2024 was received by the petitioner himself, and it is reasonably understood that petitioner in collusion with M/s. Petroliv Petroleums, is attempting to get release of the vehicle by misleading the Court. According to the respondents, the goods detained are hazardous waste governed by the Hazardous Material (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2007, and are to be handled, stored and transported following the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board from time to time. Since sullage can be handled only by following the guidelines and supervision of the Pollution Control Board, Kerala, careless handling and transferring of waste may result in environmental damage, and hence, the vehicle ought not to be released unless the fine and penalty imposed on the goods and the vehicle are remitted.

4. Since the petitioner asserted during the course of arguments that no order of confiscation was ever served on him, an additional counter affidavit was filed by the respondent producing a copy of the order of confiscation dated 21.12.2024, and pointed out that petitioner was served with such a copy pursuant to a request made by him, and the order as well as the request letter containing the endorsement indicating receipt of order was produced. It is also